On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 07:29:10 +0200 (CEST)
Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010, Mark Smith wrote:
So my question was how would you solve it (architecturally)?
Layer 2 devices inspecting traffic isn't architecturally acceptable
because it's a layer violation,
Serious disconnect between map and reality here, Mark.
If you think that, then I don't think you've read my emails
properly.
... or there is a serious disconnect between your reality and my reality.
By saying that L2 devices doing L3 inspection is a layer violation and
isn't
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 11:58:45 +0200 (CEST)
Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010, Mark Smith wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 07:29:10 +0200 (CEST)
Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010, Mark Smith wrote:
So my question was how would you
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 12:57:48 +0200 (CEST)
sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Serious disconnect between map and reality here, Mark.
If you think that, then I don't think you've read my emails
properly.
... or there is a serious disconnect between your reality and my reality.
By saying
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010, Mark Smith wrote:
So I accept layer violations to perform some of these functions, but I
think it'd be preferable if they could be avoided.
Of course it is preferrable if they can be avoided.
Problem is that the method you're suggesting to solve this with, is not
On 2010-09-11 01:18, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
You know that in the back of my mind I still wish to use the Flow Label as an
alternate to the RPL HbH option.
I can imagine how that might work as long as the packets concerned never
left the scope of RPL, but the results would be very
On 2010-09-10 00:09, Rémi Després wrote:
...
R3. Intermediate nodes MAY replace null FL values by non-zero FL values,
PROVIDED these non-zero values generally differ from a flow to another.
IMHO that isn't a strong enough condition, if we want load balancing to be
the preferred default usage.
On Sep 12, 2010, at 4:01 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
What I said was, and I'll highlight the key word,
Layer 2 devices inspecting traffic isn't *architecturally* acceptable
because it's a layer violation
The best place to fix IPv6 issues in in IPv6.
well, yes, but...
let me give you one
